Electromyography as a tool to motion analysis for people with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: A protocol for a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomechanical analysis of human movement plays an essential role in understanding functional changes in people with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), providing information on muscle impairment. Studies suggest that surface electromyography (sEMG) may be able to quantify muscle activity, identify levels of fatigue, assess muscle strength, and monitor variation in limb movement. In this article, a systematic review protocol will analyze the psychometric properties of the sEMG regarding the clinical data on the skeletal muscles of people with ALS. This protocol uses the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodological tool. A specific field structure was defined to reach each phase. Nine scientific databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Elsevier, IEEE, Google Scholar, SciELO, PEDro, LILACS E CENTRAL) were searched. The framework developed will extract data (i.e. study information, sample information, sEMG information, intervention, and outcomes) from the selected studies using a rigorous approach. The data will be described quantitatively using frequency and trend analysis methods, and heterogeneity between the included studies will be assessed using the I2 test. The risk of bias will be summarized using the most recent prediction model risk of bias assessment tool. Be sure to include relevant statistics here, such as sample sizes, response rates, P values or Confidence Intervals. Be specific (by stating the value) rather than general (eg, "there were differences between the groups"). This protocol will map out the construction of a systematic review that will identify and synthesize the advances in movement analysis of people with ALS through sEMG, using data extracted from articles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.110 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".